User talk:Scienter



Please remember to sign your comments with ~ !

Please Note!

I am human and like virtually all other humans, I do not like to be spoken to rudely. If you cannot type your message to me (a complete stranger) respectfully, perhaps you should reconsider what you are saying. I like pleases, thank-yous, respectfully's, etc. 

 If you scoff, sneer, look-down at this sort of thinking, please reconsider your role here.

I should think this message goes doubly or quadruply for established users and administrators. 

Dimensional Insight
Could you please take another look at the Dimensional Insight article? I added some references, and I think they help demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would change my opinion to Keep but my opinion was removed by one of the jackass know-it-alls who troll this encyclopedia. I think DI is just as "notable" as 95% of the stuff on this thing, now that you've shown a few sources to demonstrate this notability.  Sorry if thats not much help. Scienter 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nova Southeastern University
Wikipedia is not a newspaper !! Keeps the news out of wikipedia, and keep the facts ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.246.108 (talk • contribs) Scienter 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am willing to discuss the matter with you, but I won't be told what may be included and what must be excluded. Your anonymous deletion and unattributed comments onto my talkpage seems like bad faith.  I say to you, that issue is important to the school, the works, the community of Davie and surrounding areas.  Further, it has received local, region, and national coverage by media outlets.  To argue that "wikipedia is not a newspaper" is an irrelevant argument.  I'm not reporting news, I'm including events that speak to the notability of the university as a whole. I'm not crystalballing, I'm not crufting, I'm not violating any Wikipolicy that I am aware of. Look, I'm not saying the Nova article, or the UNICCO subsection is well done, but the UNICCO subsection does belong on the Nova article.  My initial thoughts are that you have a beef with Nova or perhaps with UNICCO and don't like how I've presented it.  I've tried for objectivity and NPOV, but perhaps you think I've failed at that effort. Then EDIT the article in a neutral way, don't erase it.  Keep doing what you're doing and I'll report you to an administrator.Scienter 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Keep up the NPOV editing, and try not to worry much about vandals like the one who wrote on your talk page. I and others had to deal with the same thing when writing about UNICCO/SEIU/University of Miami earlier this calendar year. When your IPvandal strikes again, just revert, type "rv vandalism" in the edit summary, and stick a warning tag on that vandal's userpage. Just type in - and then enter. If the vandal repeats his/her offense, you can report him/her on the administrator's noticeboard, and that IP address will be blocked. Good luck! --Anthony Krupp 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about capsulating the issues as it has been done on the University of Miami page and moving the more detailed explanation to a seperate page?Butnotthehippo 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sounds like a great idea. As soon as exams are over I can take some time to help in improving the Nova article more. As of right now, I'm limited to mostly the occasional peek. Scienter 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a bunch of work on various Nova stuff. I created some new pages and such. I've never done that before and you seem to know what you're doing, so when you get a chance if you wouldn't mind looking at them... good luck on examsButnotthehippo 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I looked at the new edits and they look good from a cursory glance. I'm actually very new to editing myself, although I confess I've been trolling Wikipedia for several years.   I have managed to take some photos while walking around campus that will look very good.  Scienter 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I wanted to invite you to leave a comment at Talk:Nova Southeastern University. Another user and I disagree on the use of a POV tag, and I think a third opinion could help us with this. Thanks for taking the time! Best, -Anthony Krupp 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Asian Games
can i take some of your time? can you give me suggestions on how i can reword the criticism section in an NPOV manner? please reply on my talk page. thanks a lot. --RebSkii 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your comments on my talk page in relation to harassment. It's always nice to receive help even when it hasn't been asked for! Regards, -Anthony Krupp 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a user page. I stole your layout since it is simple and seemed easy to modify. I hope you don't mind!! They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... Butnotthehippo 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Butnotthehippo
Butnotthehippo is a silly person who thinks his status as a law student gives rights to edit other contributors input, and he does it without justifying. Butnotthehippo appears to think that naked females are notable persons, but a man who works hard and gets to be an expert witness. Butnotthehippo appears to be uneducated and looking to have his input edited as well, should we find it out to be self serving and or untrue. Scienter, you need to coach your protegee a bit more on ethics, he needs a few more lessons. His actions as an editor are something to be, improved upon. Thank you.(10 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I have no protegee, and Butnotthehippo has never acted as though he were. I do not know the individual you speak of beyond our collaboration on the NSU article.  If you have a personal problem with him, perhaps you should speak to him personally? Scienter 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Civility
Scienter,

Thanks for your support.

Lovelac 7 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Regarding your assertion that the "author should have been aware of Wikipedia policy and should never remove a prod" on the Articles_for_deletion/Logitech_MX_revolution AFD - this is incorrect. Anyone can remove a prod from an article for any reason as long as it's not blatant vandalism. Please see WP:PROD. exolon 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Charles Smith AfD closing
Hi, I closed the debate as delete because the article didn't contain a single sentence on the importance of the subject. The article had two citations, both of were used as references for his views, not for asserting notability. It also stated that "Smith is unknown outside of Oregon, and has no previous experience in political office."

Here's an analysis of votes:

Keep
 * User:69.143.31.101 (WP:USEFUL)
 * User:Peteforsyth (notable locally in Oregon -- countered by RGTraynor with the argument that notability within Oregon is not established either)
 * User:Scienter (per Peteforsyth and Katr67)
 * User:172.164.116.249 (received press coverage -- countered by User:Nhprman with the argument that the coverage is trivial)
 * User:Katr67 (WP:USEFUL)

Delete
 * User:Sesel (Not notable)
 * User:Yaf (Not notable)
 * User:Nhprman (Not notable)
 * User:Zedco (Non-notable + Self-promotion)
 * User:Cyrus Andiron (Fails WP:BIO)
 * User:RGTraynor (not notable in Oregon either)
 * User:Pious7 (Not notable)
 * User:Seattle Skier (Fails WP:BIO)
 * User:DGG (Not notable)
 * User:Blaxthos (Self-promotion -- not considered)
 * User:Bensmith53 (Self-promotion -- not considered)
 * User:JzG (Self-promotion -- not considered)

Redirect
 * User:Lyrl (name is a possible search term, borders on WP:USEFUL)
 * User:Black Falcon (per Lyrl)

Comments
 * User:Djma12 (Does not meet WP:BIO for notability)
 * User:Mikesmth, subject of the article (other such articles exist, Wikipedia should serve as a resource for voters to assess candidates)

I personally felt that none of the keep votes asserted how the subject passess WP:BIO. If you feel that the consensus was not reached, please feel free to file a deletion review. utcursch | talk 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
This edit broke your userpage (and lots of other peoples). I have now reverted the edit. Thanks for pointing it out - because there was probably a lot of confused people out there. Ian ¹³ /t  19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ian ¹³  /t  21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ray Ferrero.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ray Ferrero.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:NSU sharks.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NSU sharks.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Shepard College of Law
I'm a bit puzzled. Every current reference I can find refers to the NSU law school as Shepard Broad College of Law. Did the name change after you authored the page in 2006? If so, should the page be deleted and replaced with one having all the current content, but with the current name? Thanks. Activist (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)